By Kenneth J. Kremer

In a world turned upside-down by revolutionary ideas, the ancient proverb sounds quaint, if not old-fashioned: “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6). The prospect of bringing up future generations of young Christians in a culture hostile to our faith should concern all of God’s people.

Speaking about the role education plays in building character, Herbert Spencer declared, “Education has for its object the formation of character, so as to finally develop the child into a man of well-proportioned and harmonious nature . . . This is the aim of parent and teacher alike.”[i] In an age of schools, early childhood programs, curriculums, learning strategies, and virtual classrooms, character building inevitably engages parents and teachers in a common cause. But Spencer wrote these words before the Civil War. And he believed that the only meaningful philosophical problems are those that can be solved by logical analysis. God’s Word doesn’t always jibe with logic. Logic has no room for angels, miracles, prayer, or a bodily resurrection. Spencer wasn’t speaking about the kind of character Christian parents would want for their children. He was proposing a kind of character that would fit the needs of an enlightened society, eager to replace biblical explanations for their world with secular ideas.God’s people need to talk about a kind of character that is distinctively biblical. And the conversation needs to occur in an environment that is decidedly Christian.

It doesn’t help that our media-driven culture surrounds us with messages that promote self-image, self-confidence, self-improvement, and self-importance.[ii] Character is portrayed as an innate and self-generated reservoir of popular values. Innate means we are born with it. Self-generated suggests we make it up as we go. Defined in this way, character formation rests almost entirely on self. And self says, “My character is all about me—my desires, my views, my will.” It leaves little room for the idea that we are shaped by the virtues and values others have passed on to us. It debunks the notion that we participate in the shaping of others by sharing our own moral worldview. Worse, it ignores sin and natural man’s inability to be moral, as God designed us to be.[iii]

Today the popular understanding of character is hostile to our Christian faith. When character is understood as innate morality, it is easy to replace humility with arrogance. Without social constraint, self-gratification and immodesty can trump chastity and purity with impunity. Without communal input, revenge can be justified. When honesty is not considered a worthy virtue, everyone’s integrity is tarnished. When we stop telling our kids that the line between perception and truth is important, we are living on the edge of a precipice. If no one bothers to explain otherwise, life itself can be devalued, and death can be recast as a friend. Lacking meaningful sanctions, personal rights will take precedence over compassion, authority will be challenged at every turn, reverence will become a relic of the past, and love will be little more than a warm, fuzzy feeling. Of course, this doesn’t happen overnight. We have been living for a long time in a culture suffering from a seriously depleted version of what most of us thought character meant. Who saw it coming?

To be fair, an already robust conversation regarding character is starting to gather a head of steam in the halls of secular education. Thinkers are asking penetrating questions about our culture’s moral groundings. They are reacting to the growing erosion of moral standards in commerce, business, medicine, politics, education, sports, the judicial system, the armed forces, etc. We see moral standards wearing away at work, in the marketplace, at school, online, on television, in the books we read and the films we watch. The erosion is real. And it is pervasive.

A new term has inched its way into our vocabulary: Character Education (CE). The concept is based on the hope that public education might somehow be able to right the ship of character. Stay tuned. The debate is likely to attract plenty of attention. Sadly, in a culture reticent to revisit old questions about absolutes, incapable of agreeing on the seat of moral authority, and sorely lacking a reliable roadmap to point the way,[iv] the budding secular discussion is a non-starter for God’s people.

The most disturbing news is with regard to a significant decline in the way God’s own people engage the conversation. Just when the secular world is poised to confront some hard questions, many Christian families have stopped talking at home about right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and evil. Many parents feel inadequate, incompetent, and poorly equipped for the role of spiritual leader in their own homes. They are bewildered by the contradictions that exist between their religious beliefs and the lifestyles promoted by Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and the popular media. Some have abdicated their biblical responsibility,[v] hoping their children will encounter the conversation elsewhere. Others have abandoned their Bibles altogether, deferring to platitudes, urban myths, and slick jargon to make sense of their troubled lives.[vi] Still others address their inner turmoil by trying to find an illusive point of balance somewhere between biblical morality and the popular values that dominate the world in which they live.

We need to have a serious conversation about the difference between Christian character and secular character—one that responds to the lonely echo of a vital dialog gone missing. The stakes are high, and the deck is no longer stacked in our favor. Chips on the table include friends, jobs, social opportunities, income levels, careers, and personal and professional relationships. The last thing many of us want is a public debate about godly character.[vii] Such a conversation is likely to raise some embarrassing questions and stir some serious internal conflicts. It’s a risky proposition. But we need to have this conversation anyway, regardless of the risks. Let’s embrace it with a heart of faith.

Kenneth Kremer teaches a graduate course for Martin Luther College entitled, “Family Issues in Education.” He is the author of, “FOUNDATIONS: A Parent’s Introduction to Christian Education” (2013, NPH) and “A Heart At Peace: Biblical Strategies for Christians in Conflict” (2014, NPH).

The article that appears here is from the Introduction to a new book by the author. The book is entitled, “…Even When Steeples Are Falling: Raising Godly Children in an Ungodly World.” The project explores the biblical formation of character in Christian young people. You can find the book’s Introduction and Chapter One posted at http://thesteeplesproject.com . The remaining seven chapters will be released on an average of every 45 days. 

[i] “Respectfully Submitted: A Dictionary of Quotations,” Suzy Platt, Ed., #501.

[ii] For anyone intent on laying blame for the secularism of our age, the popular media is an easy target. In truth, the media is simply reacting and responding to the tide of popular ideologies that go back as far as the 18^th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[iii] Romans 3:23a.

[iv] 1 Timothy 2:14-15.

[v] Deuteronomy 4, 6, 11. Many parents have never given serious thought to the contradictions between the faith they believe, teach, and confess and the ideals promoted by the popular culture.

[vi] 2 Timothy 4:2-5.

[vii] In his popular book, The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good or Evil (Basic Books, 2000), James Davison Hunter introduces his position with the following Postmortem: “We say we want a renewal of character in our day, but we don’t really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels. This price is too high for us to pay. We want character, but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame; we want virtue, but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist upon it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms that we want it.”